United States v. Christopher Smith , 357 F. App'x 55 ( 2009 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 18 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No. 08-30419
)
Plaintiff – Appellee, ) D.C. No. 4:07-CR-00013-RRB
)
v. ) MEMORANDUM*
)
CHRISTOPHER N. SMITH, )
)
Defendant – Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Ralph R. Beistline, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 3, 2009**
Seattle, Washington
Before: FERNANDEZ, KLEINFELD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Neil Smith appeals his conviction for conspiracy and possession
with intent to distribute methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. We affirm.
Smith asserts that his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral
argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
States Constitution were violated when a package in the mail was inspected and
searched. We disagree. There was no delay of delivery beyond the guaranteed
delivery time,1 and there is no privacy interest in the writing on the outside of a
package2 or in the smells it exudes.3 Moreover, probable cause existed before the
package was opened pursuant to a warrant,4 and the failure of the affidavit in
support of the warrant to mention an informant’s tip, which helped lead to scrutiny
of the outside of the package, was not a misrepresentation. In fact, it was not
relevant5 because that minim fact would support rather than detract from the
grounds for the warrant.6 The district court did not err.
AFFIRMED.
1
See United States v. Jefferson, 566 F.3d 928, 933–35 (9th Cir. 2009);
United States v. Quoc Viet Hoang, 486 F.3d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir. 2007).
2
See Jefferson, 566 F.3d at 933.
3
See id.; see also Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 408–410, 125 S. Ct. 834,
837–38, 160 L. Ed. 2d 842 (2005).
4
See Quoc Viet Hoang, 486 F.3d at 1158, 1162.
5
See United States v. Johns, 948 F.2d 599, 606–07 (9th Cir. 1991); see also
United States v. Elliott, 322 F.3d 710, 714–15 (9th Cir. 2003).
6
See Johns, 948 F.2d at 607.
2